Mftss, e/i3L;L; (VH 312Dbb DE71 Ebbfl 1 NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT WITH THE MID-ATLANTIC COUNCIL'S SURF CLAM & OCEAN QUAHOG FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN ^00^^' coated bv ■* (A Massachusetts David E. Pierce Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 100 Cambridge St. Boston, MA 02563 Funded by the New England Fishery Management Council €*>$ A? | NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT WITH THE MID-ATLANTIC COUNCIL'S SURF CLAM & OCEAN QUAHOG FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN by David E. Pierce Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 100 Cambridge St. Boston, MA 02563 Funded by the New England Fishery Management Council Publication #: l323b-29-5U-5-83- C.R. Approved by John J. Manton, State Purchasing Agent Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from Boston Library Consortium Member Libraries http://archive.org/details/newenglandfisherOOpier The Surf Clam/Ocean Quahog Plan was implemented by emergency regulations on November 17 , 19 77. This Plan set annual (January through December) catch quotas of 1,800,000 bushels of surf clams and 3,000,000 bushels of ocean quahogs. The surf clam quota was allocated by calendar quarter with 350,000 bushels for the first and fourth quarters and 550,000 bushels for the second and third quarters. For surf clams the Plan restricted fishing effort through a reduction of allowable fishing time (days fished) and, importantly, established a moratorium on new entrants into the fishery. The Plan required a significant cutback in allowable harvest. It recognized that surf clam populations were declining and that a long-term stock rebuilding program was needed. It also recognized that fishing effort would be transferred to the ocean quahog resource, thus the need to manage surf clams and ocean quahogs together. Three objectives were set: 1) Rebuild the declining surf clam population to allow eventual harvest approaching the 50,000,000 pound level, which is the present best estimate of the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) , based on the aver- age yearly catch of 1960 through 1976. 2) Minimize the short-term economic dislocations to the extent possible consistent with objective 1 and promote economic efficiency. 3) Prevent the harvest of ocean quahog from exceeding biologically sound sustainable yield levels, and direct the fishery toward maintaining optimum yield. This Plan aroused much concern by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) . Ever since the Draft Plan was published in April 19 77, the New England Council kept up with the Plan's development and attempted to have its recommendations accepted by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) , the lead Council for Plan devel- opment. In particular, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, as states and members of the Council, attempted to prevent the Surf Clam/Ocean Quahog Plan from unduly restricting existing and potential fisheries in New England for both species. For example, soon after the proposed Plan was published, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) related its concern to the New England Council that the proposed mora- torium and quotas appeared to pertain to the New England as well as the mid-Atlantic areas. The New England Council as a whole recognized this possibility too as evidenced by an open letter, providing a summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Fishery Management Plan (DEIS/FMP) and a detailed analysis of regulating requirements and implications thereof, to the New England surf clam/ocean quahog industry. The New England Council took the following position on the Draft: 1) "The 35,000,000 pound quota on surf clams is not clearly and everywhere limited to the mid-Atlantic waters. In all references, both in the Plan and in the proposed emergency regulations, the surf clam quota should be rigorously defined as applying to the mid-Atlantic waters along and to the south and west of a line extending from Montauk , Long Island, „ southward to the 22 fathom line. 2) The controlled entry stipulation outlined as option 1 should read: the number of vessels in the surf clam fishery will be frozen in the mid-Atlantic area six months from the date of enactment of the Manage- ment Plan with consideration of limitations in the New England area at a later date. 3) While the text clearly anticipates workweek restric- tions as applying only to .the mid-Atlantic waters, this fact is not clearly stated everywhere. Again, a line separating the mid-Atlantic region from the New England region is needed. All restrictions con- templated should be clearly listed as applying to waters to the north and east or to the south and west of the line. 4) In general the Council supports the Plan as being urgently needed, contingent upon clarification of regional restrictions." On July 25, 19 77, the Executive Director of the New England Council sent to each member a copy of the Final EIS/ FMP which had no geographic distinction between the New England and mid-Atlantic areas. The moratorium applied to both regions and was to: "Prohibit the entry of additional vessels into the surf clam fishery effective immediately upon the adoption of the Plan by the Secretary of Commerce. This provision would not exclude those vessels demonstrated to have been under construction at the time of adoption of the FMP. The moratorium would not preclude replacement (with a vessel of similar capacity) of vessels involuntarily leaving the fishery during the time when the moratorium is in force; other hardship cases would be considered on a case by case basis according to criteria recom- mended by the Council and prescribed by the Secre- tary. The FMP recommends that the moratorium remain in effect for one year from the date of adoption of the FMP unless the Secretary determines, after consultation with the Council and after a public hearing, that the moratorium should be terminated or extended." FEIS/FMP also established a four-day workweek, Monday through Thursday, to help spread yearly catch evenly through- out each quarter. On September 21, 1977 representatives of the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils, National Marine Fisheries Service, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Rhode Island Div- ision of Fish and Wildlife and Maine Department of Marine Resources met to review and resolve questions related to final objectives and proposed regulations of the Surf Clam/ Ocean Quahog Management Plan. The two principal points of concern were: 1) the stated objective of stabilizing the surf clam stock, and; 2) the one-year moratorium on new entry into the surf clam fishery immediately upon implementation of the Management Plan. According to a summary of the meeting, "There was extended discussion on the issue of immediate restricted entry. The point was stressed that the restriction would preclude any New England vessels from exploring for or fishing on any surf clam stocks off the New England coast including those vessels that presently had an interest or intent in doing so. It was made clear that the New England Council did not propose that New England vessels would fish off the mid-Atlantic coast, nor that mid-Atlantic vessels would be precluded from fishing off New England. After extended discussion on the feasibility of of establishing zones in which the moratorium on entry would and would not apply, the Mid-Atlantic Council agreed it would recommend a line off the Long Island/Connecticut coasts, east of which the restricted entry proposal would not apply." This line was included in the FEIS/FMP so as to prohibit the entry of additional vessels into the surf clam fishery south of 41° latitude . However, when emergency, proposed, and final regulations were published on November 17, 1977, January 3, 19 78, and February 17, 19 78, no line of demarca- tion for entry moratorium was included. The removal of the line from the FEIS/FMP prompted Allen Peterson, then Director of DMF, and Jay Cronin, Director of the Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, to send pro- tests to then Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, Terry Leitzel (see letters) . A March 6, 1978 response (see letter) to Rhode Island's protest indicated that NOAA attorneys felt the two areas (north and south of 41° latitude) could not be established since it would have been possible for a vessel to be built north of the line and then legally moved south. An April 12, 1978 response (see letter) to Massachusetts' protest was received from Terry Leitzel. Reasons for not exempting the New England area from the moratorium and the four-day workweek were given. These reasons were: 1) The Mid-Atlantic Plan contained no documented analyses or justification for such an exemption and no analyses or documentation of the impact of possible options. 2) No evidence of the substance or conclusions of discussions to exclude the New England area from the moratorium was presented for the record in the Plan or in supplemental material. 3) No provision for public comment on the proposed exclusion was made. 4) NMFS legal and enforcement people felt that the exclusion, as written, was unenforceable. The issue was pursued further by Allen Peterson, and he received another reply (see letter) which indicated that "a number of significant legal issues" needed to be examined regarding the moratorium issue. Because the Plan was implemented, the only way to accomo- date New England concerns was through a formal Plan Amendment In keeping with this stipulation the New England Council contacted the Mid-Atlantic Council and requested an Amendment (see June 13 letter) . The NEFMC, 1) Understood that the Mid-Atlantic Council intended to hold public hearings in July on an Amendment to the Plan. I '. I U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oeaanic and Atmospheric Administratis NATIONAL MAHINf FISHERIES SERVICE Northeast Region Fisheries Management Division State Fish Pier Gloucester, MA 01930 ■ . u March 6, 1978 Mr. John M. Cronan, Chief Rhooe Island Division of Fish and Wildlife Box 37 West Kingston. RI 02892 /) D'' if Ja y : This is in responsp to your letter of February "13 outlini ; problem area'> in int- >urf clam regulations currently in t'rect. The reflations for thns,- innri,-.<; protected under the Fishery Conservation an 1 Management Art- are p.i«pd en 'he informal ion and jurisdictions devrlope'd in the species man... .«n»-nr plans. As you point out, 50 CFR, Pare 652.1. ii worded, sugaests that ine ifrtorudtion used in preparing the plan was inter veted as dpsc ib- ing the entire range ot the resource, rather than the limbed irea envisioned hy the surf clam technical committee. Lawyers decided th . could no;, be separated. Apparently it would be possible to build a ve sel and fish it north of 41° tor awhile and then legally move south. Wnd' the system ot plan preparation and fview currently bring toliowr-.i fnr irt cla';" manage- ment plans, '.he Mid-A: lantir Council ha' fho icMinns i>il > / to-- aincnding the plan anr) inr oi pur :tinq co'mwnti ani revisions oased ivi char-i^s in .tock assessment ir plan, ~nr industry expari' :,.n l\r rnjs r.i-.e, the uiat! -is (anno' be : oai.gec! wi tout sue(ific amendment 'n Vh .nanagenu it plan, vo-ir romiiit-'its 'lowld be oirectr'l to Jonn liry'Siin of fhe Mid-Atlantic '•ishorv M.in«> i< 'ie* * Count: i bint.ere :y , Fraii' hi i i'p Chi'-' . 'ishpr*es Management Division tnt i'i .i.i e Aft— I I ro:*rton. Jr. Or aLeve**££ *7alto7tAla/l J fate Cilice dOuiutina. 100 ^avUfSJa* Sftrtet, &ccUn C2SC2 February 3, 1978 Mr. Terry L. Leitzell F Assistant Administrator for Fisheries National Oceanic and Ataospherie Administration 3300 Whitehaven Parkway, NW Washington, D.C. 20235 Dear Mr. Leitzell: The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries on behalf of the fishermen of our state wishes to comment on the proposed surf clam and ocean quahog regulations as published in the Federal Registers (Volume 43, No. 1) dated January 3, 1978. In particular, the noratorium on entry into the surf clam fishery within the entire Fishery Conservation Zone (section 652.91; paragraph a) is of great concern. On September 21, 1977, in Peabody, Massachusetts, representatives of the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and. trie Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries met to specifically discuss the 'proposed moratorium. It was agreed that the Kid-Atlantic Council would recommend a line of demarcation off the Long Island-Connecticut coast east of which the moratorium would not apply. The reasons for the decision were: 1) in our region the abundance and distribution of surf cla-^s is unknown and the stocks are virtuflly unexploited; 2) restrictions in our region would inhibit further exploration for and fishing on surf clam stocks; 3) interest in the fishery by fishermen is increasing and restrictions wculd prematurely strangle its development. It is realized that rejection of this amendment to the plan by the National Marine Fisheries Service and Department of Commerce was brought about by legal time constraints. However, we feel it is an issue of significant importance that needs to be incorporated into the plan for the remainder of 1978. We also object to the four day effort restriction (section 652.7; paragraph a). This limitation unnecesarily prevents New England vessels from operating in a segment of the surf clam fishery which is notovercapitali;ed or overfished. In summary, we do not believe these restrictive measures are necessary in the New England area. Allen E. Peterson, Jr. Director ■J MITE 3 STATES 3EP-.J "J.it:on.ii C;cinic "i«: - F31/MKO Mr. Allen E. Peterson, Jr. Director, Division of Marine Fisheries Leverett Saltonstall State Office Building 100 Cambridge Street Boston, Massachusetts 02202 Dear Mr. Peterson: This is in response to your letter of February 3, 1978, concerning the regulations for the surf clam and ocean quahog fisheries in the Atlantic. Please excuse our delay in responding, but we have been obtaining clarifi- cation from the concerned parties on the points which you raise. There were four reasons besides "legal time constraints" behind the decision not to exempt the New England area from the proposal for a moratorium on new entries into the surf clam fishery. First, the plan contained no documented analysis or justification for such an- exclusion, and no analysis or documentation of the impacts of possible options. Second, although we realize that some discussion of the subject had taken place, no evidence of the substance or conclusions of these discussions was presented for the record, either in the plan, or in supplementary material. Third, there had been no provision for public comments on the proposed exclusion, although the subject is important and somewhat controversial. Finally, our legal and enforcement people felt that the exclusion, as written, was unenforceable due to the lack of clarity in items such as the definition of "new" clam beds, the rights of clammers from one portion of the Fishery Conservation Zone (FCZ) to fish in other portions, as well as several other provisions of the exclusion. All four of these factors also apply to the exclusion of New England from the four- day workweek provisions contained in the plan. We agree that it may be desirable to address differing situations with respect to the harvest of surf clams in the various areas of the FCZ in both the management plan and in the regulations. If you have access to data or information which might aid the Mid-Atlantic and New England Councils and our NMFS Northeast Regional Office in develop- ing an approach to this problem, please provide it to the Council. Thank you for advising us of our concerns. The management planning process is an iterative one. Many of these problems will be ironed out as more information becomes available, and as we gain more experience in applying this information to specific problems. /Sincerely, xv L. Leitzell / Terry L. Lei Acting Assistant Administrator i'or Fisheries 8 F31/MZ JUN 8 1978 Mr. Allen E. Peterson, Jr. Director, Division of Marine Fisheries Leverett Saltonstall State Office Building 100 Cambridge Street Boston, Massachusetts 02202 Dear Mr. Peterson: As wae discussed In your conversation with Mark Zllberberg in our Office of Fisheries Management on Thursday, May 25, 1978, the Issues of the surf clam-ocean quahog moratorium and fishing effort restriction, and their impact on New England fishermen, are currently being reviewed. I am aware of the effect of the present regulations on New England fishermen and related problems such as vessel financing and the accurate reporting of harvest locations (I.e., Inside or outside of the three mile limit) . I anticipate that these problems will be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. The comments on the surf clam-ocean quahog regulations which were mailed from your office on February 6, 1978, arrived at this office on February 15, 1978. No exceptions were made to the February 11, 1978, deadline for receiving such comments for acknowledgment In the Federal Register . General Counsel has indicated to us informally that the proposal to except New England fishermen from the moratorium presents a number of significant legal Issues which certainly need to be examined. This remains to be done. You also raised the issue of fishing periods. While your comments regarding the moratorium were the only comments received on that issue, a number of commentators raised the fishing period issue consonant with your views. Those comments are reflected In the final regulations. I have asked General Counsel to examine the legal Issues referred to above. I am also asking Bill Gordon to discuss this matter with the New England Council at the earliest opportunity so that all issues are considered . In the meantime, I appreciate your patience. Sincerely, j£jerry$. Leitzell ^Assistant Administrator for Fisheries New England Regional Fishery Management Council Peabody Office Building One Newbury Street Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 617 535-5450 FTS 8-223-3822 June 13, 1978 Mr. John C. Bryson, Executive Director Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Federal Building, Room 2115 300 South New Street '"•.>. Dover, Delaware 19901 "? Dear John: It is our understanding that the Mid-Atlantic Council plans to hold public hearings on amendments to the Surf Clam Management Plan in July. This Council is very concerned about the application of management measures, which may be appropriate for the Mid-Atlantic area, to the surf clam fishery of New England. Quite different circumstances exist in the New England fishery. This Council is concerned particularly that the resource off New England is not over-exploited, that in fact i't is not adequately described or assessed, and that the fishery is hardly developed. The Council feels, therefore, that it is inappropriate that the vessel moratorium and the restrictive weekly trip limitations should apply in New England waters, and that in fact they may prevent the development of a viable New England surf clam fishery. The public hearings that were held a year ago, particularly in Newport, RI, discussed these concerns at length. As a result of those hearings and the nature of the New England fishery, the Council urged that New England be exempted from those restrictive management measures. It was the understanding of the Council that New England was exempted when the Surf Clam Management Plan was submitted last fall. The Council was of course disturbed to learn that all the restrictive provisions of the plan apply to the New England fishery. Therefore the Council requests that the plan be amended to include a demarcation line, east of which the vessel moratorium, catch quotas, and effort restrictions on surf clams shall not apply. In short, the Council believes that such restrictions are unnecessary and inappropriate in New England waters where the resource is poorly known or assessed but very likely underutilized, and where the fishery is little developed and under-capitalized. The Council therefore requests that this letter be entered as part of the record of your public hearing on amendments to the surf clam plan, and that the plan be amended accordingly. Thank you. Sincerely yours C^lSIA^X Spencer Apollonio Executive Director PP cc: NERFMC Members 2) Restated the New England concern over the moratorium and fishing-day limitations. 3) Understood that New England was exempted in the Plan submitted in the fall of 19 77 (but wasn't when final regulations were implemented) and requested a Plan Amendment to include a line of demarcation north of which the moratorium, catch quotas , and effort restrictions on surf clams would not apply. 4) Wanted these New England Council comments to be entered as part of the record for the upcoming July hearings . 10 Frustrated by the Mid-Atlantic Council's failure to hold anticipated public hearings on the 'moratorium issue, the New England Council wrote Terry Leitzel on August 15, 1978 to request a Secretarial hearing. A September 18 hearing was scheduled. However, just prior to this hearing the Mid- Atlantic Council informed the New England Council that it was considering changes to the Plan and that a draft of those changes would be discussed at an April 19, 19 79 hearing. Also, NEFMC was informed that the Mid-Atlantic Council Scientific and Statistical Committee was to provide recommendations for a line of demarcation. At the September 18 hearing, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries again protested inclusion of New England in the surf clam fishery moratorium on entry (September 18 correspondence) . The Division stated that a continuation of the moratorium for another year would be a further injustice to Massachusetts fishermen. On October 19, 1978 a letter from William Gordon, then Regional Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service, was received by the Council. William Gordon provided his staff's review of the various drafts of the Plan with respect to inclusion of the New England area under the moratorium. His conclusion was that the Fishery Management Plan, approved by the Secretary of Commerce, did not exempt the New England area from the surf clam vessel moratorium even though the language both in the Draft FMP/EIS (April 19 77) and the Final FMP/EIS indicated that such an exemption was the Mid-Atlantic Council's intent at that time. In reply, the New England Council sent an October 26 letter (see letter) to then Secretary of Commerce Juanita Krebs informing her that, "the Atlantic Surf Clam Plan in its present form is unsatisfactory and unacceptable to this Council and it cannot support the Plan. The Council, there- fore requests that you direct the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Manage- ment Council, the lead Council for this Plan, to amend the Plan as appropriate for conditions in the New England area, and that you review and promulgate regulations that will im- plement satisfactory and reasonable Amendments to the Plan." The Council finally lost its patience and made the decision to withdraw its support for the existing Plan. 11 c 4* v 0 •* V 9 M C3 0,0) 01 M -H > u 3 IM o o 41 o c c *» 0 B 3 O A N O n-4 o. XI •a « » 4) M -P C OH O > 01 •HMO •uw a c a. ci o> o §.Sc M 4J 0 o o a v ego" £ M £ ■P HJ fl 41 0 0 0 o£ A U *> 4* 0) i o 4> O •HCO £IM * 3 0 Oi (A 0 e u O 0XJ •H 4» 4» « 01 -H •H M 3 > O •H 0 - Q W 4» 01 w 0 u ££-H Ei 4< h 3 I 0 3 «H 2 OH 0 O e tj c O 3 01 o C A U 0 V - •H C 4J •• 0 OTJ 0) fl C 5 O 41 01 O 0 •H 0 XI £ to *j o> B A o> •H O 0 «M • "H ~ c 41 0 0 C H ro a> n a "0 c a c u I 3 0 z 0 • A V 01 4j a, O fl D c fl) -H £ o •p-o £ o -p 0 c £ otj 4- rH 4) 0 TJ C £ c 0 oe A g 0141 oi E C 0 »H •• O -H TJ £ tlUh 0 o 0 oi m •H O 0 -H >-H££ M »H -P 0 XI r* w 3 r- c Cue* O in .-! « » TJ •»-: tj A 0 MM M » 0 -H 0>-H IM 41 ££ C 3 C O oi f-t -h cr ft) c ■H MO (m 3 10 0) 0 • •a a > 0 TJ M4J fl c u -a 0) £ •H O 0 A 0 M O G 4»rH 0 0 -H M -H 2 M 0 3 £ •P«w 3 HVJ3 EUTJ 01 •P 4l C C 0 0 e > 0 0 o m u a, 0 •o 0 m 0 tj ■h -a « 3 c G 0 0 fH O Z 0 O *»NC Rl/IMO u u «) id , O 01 0 TJ £ C TJ 41 01 3 0) 3 0 0 >i ;* O -H £ Im C • o 01 -H 0 oi C 0- •H M • e i«0 10 m o»e C C 0 mu B > 0 •H +j n 0-H C C 0) o 0) -H oi n MH cu> CO 01 . • r~ 0 3 HO) C 6 • >h 3 K « •H 00 • M «Hrl 0 -P 0 (0 O 0 u U CUX1 0?6» E (0 0 BuiMtn ■h ai o> 0 Vi 0 wo u o £ »j C «M O 3 A E 0 O -P TJ OUH n m TJ CH*j a.*» 0 »H O E 0 (0 0 ft) +J «4-J C 3 HOC (0 tH M S-H U 0 ro >w >i • >i r-t O 0 «H >i •H TJ TJ *J M E M-« C 3 C 0 •H -H (0 4J 0 £ 01 3 -H 3 01 tj 01 0> C-H n O0 U O C 0 «H c a ffl u I 0 •H O >i0 0 U A 3 ♦> O o» u 4J c ■H 10 •p 3 0 x u ■H £ ft) ft) ■p oi c (0 oi 0 O *J ^ cu oi il C O ±> C -P •H •« C TJ 0 0 so •H -H ft) £ u 0 u 0 0 3 H 0 01 3 O c o 0) £ 0) 3 0 U C 0 CU 0 E 01 M P ft) •H £ 01 Dl-H 0 ° o • •H TJ M 0) „ Q) u M 0 C £ C ■H 0 E-i -H 0? P -H U-H 0 S 0) 01 ^ tu O a) P 0 £ <*-! M oi O 0 0.H 01 3lM C 5 o S ^ •-< a.£ j- 4j O) 01 4J q 0 -H Z H 3 xj ^ O 0) S! tl> 0 01 O 4J V4 « > C £ CU tn._i *j ^ t >.M h a *j H TJ 01 0 0 a 0 m c u o o H *i 0 B C OTJ M 0 e u M M 3 O 4J c 0 -H 0 0£ o 3 0 TJ l-( « O u 0 >,3 as E U ■H 0 £ .. M 01 . 01 0 0 -H O 0 *J O 0) 0 C +J 0 0) n ft>.«l E 0 -P 01 0£ <0 •P *J 3 0 JMh^ .m > •H M *J 0 U 3 U O 3 ft) T3 <0 £ u WJ C 01 vm M -H J) .H I e ><-p

w *J E 0 •H -H -HO -H 01 > U • 0 TJ U •HOC >, 0 M 3 Q*J O O -P T> *^ O IQ -H 01 -H -H -H O 0 U 0> 0 «H O £O00-H0*j in c 0 ■H ^ 0) M AS 3 0) 0 O D> O o. O 0£ X »H IJ « 0) 10 C 0 0 M I) M-H 0 -H O H Cu (.)«-• O O -H 0 4J m m -h C "P 0 M 0 3 £ M gOlHOJ 0 -P i £ O • 01 CM O •H 0 *J i CUO) V 0 aj-H £ •O CI IM 4VI CH"D O O 0 CTJ 0 c M 0 MTl 3 C O 0 C 01 0 •H M -P 0 0 *J 3 O 0 O" Uj< Ji 3 O TJ O 3 <0 0) 41 0 C C M 10 O ,. Z 0 E £ 10 -t O V 0 o £ C •M 4-1 U 3 0) 3 O 0 01 01 £ •/> 0!» 0 •H o MO 0 r- £ I M •M 0 IM £ O *J M 0 a 0 u, u a o • 01 T3 0 (0 0 0) -H£ 01 U 0 c o > 0 *J ■p 0> O -P C CU0 0 0 •H >. U N £ 0 -H 01 0) 01 £ 01 0 -* H fl -H En «J £ 10 fo , • • 41 a C 10 £ TJ 0 A) (0 0 0 01 C 0 o •H > w u o 0 0 c U A 0 U a.41 >a o •H o a c » > tj tnx 0 0 0 0 0 U £ £ l-i O oi 3 0 ^HTJ 0 0 O M M <0 3 M •M O 3 0 01 O 0 -H 01 M 4J 3 P 41 0 10 10 £ CU 41 4> oi c 41 H 0 10 £ £ » 41 41 01 •H O 41 0 41 C O 0 £ TJ P W M (0 « a4i oi cu 0 0 10 x 44 O oi 3 £-H 41 4i e •H 41 0 S-H Z C 0 0) O O 3 <0 0) e-H 0 M 0 O E M O 0 (0 0 C O £^ £ 0 O 41 0 - E £ C njip » O —I u >, u O 3 i4l 01 O 0 C TJ rH > an X 3 0 01 c 3 Oi o 0£ W 01 41 £ 01 10 -H H 3 TJ W TJ 0 -H 3 C 3 0 01 10 C •H 0 01 0 Oi 0) ro > C C £ •H W O •M O T) U 3 C 3 0 0 TJ TJ Z • 0 M W 0 41 w w oi E 0 iH o u o 0 "U- ai £ r-l ,H 01 o •H I a oi o 0 c • rt C H < _ Sji-h TS S U 0 u •-* Bi 16-H «■ S 3 !h u 41 cn 0 VI iH 41 E 0 0 i O 0 0 0 t-> M TJ -P 3 IM TJ fl TJ 41 £ Z £ Oi 01 rH M -H 0) 0 C 3 C 41 IM OiCJ rH fl TJ (0 41 £ ■M 1/1 , 0 0 -H 01 «H 0 u •H 41 rH fl 0 O M 0 M 0 0 IM £ TJ -H 0 c c 01 IH 0 Oi N fl 41 C 0 TJ IM O 01 D ■^ fl U C 01 0 TJ >i41 41 fl 01 0 0 > •H 0 C C M •H iH C 0 41 O 01 > u ■<* • TJ 41 £ •H 0 fl 0 0 £ 0 £ 01 C C 41 C • H a E c 3 oi u Oi'H £ J 0 -H 4J fl C fl 41 0 TJ -P 41 3 0 o -h 0 01 01 tH 41 0 fl 0 •H 0 fl c 0) •H E -H im £ >, C H >! H ■» U M 01 01 TJ 41 QJ £ M E 41 01 rH CU IM M C V) >1-P O 3 ■rA H) C E 41 O 0 O im •H 0) M O O rH U -IM £ > 0 0 0 41 U 0 0 fa 3 3 E 0 CU»H O 01 U ■H C 0) Oi TJ fl 0 c O 0 (0 Eh 0) CU fl im 41 01 (0 a 0 fl C M M C 0) 0 •H 2 ,H 0 O O IM 01 C 01 U) M C fl O O c C > 0 0 H ■H 0 m o oi 0 H CU fl E TJ U 0 •H 0 0 41 M 01 •M O H fl £ 0 S » rH -r| u M £ IM 0 41 •h cn U 4i S 41 fl M 0 TJ 3 TJ -P rO CU4J u 41 £ H O C 0 0 >. o 0 0 c U S 3 C V) ai -h 41 rH 0 O M « M H 01 3 fl H 01 IM 01 0 -H 0 CU£ 3 3 -P 4> fl 01 0 > O M IM fl 0 0) Cn 41 in oi fj Oi 4J £ u an TJ -P 0 £ 0 •H •H 0 0 TJ M 41 01 0 O H C 0) C £ 01 M 41 IM 41 M U M 3 0 r-l (0 M U fl 0 C 0 0 -P fl O 0) • 0 H fl O 0) [l, a c rH u 0 41 H 3 3 0) 3 01 •H fl 0) 0 0 O O c > oi 0 C £ o 0) C 0 M TJ 0} 41 3 41 C M -P -rl C H 3 M -H U ■H •H 0 O c •H 0) rH C 0 0 01 C O 41 n fl +J M £ Oi fl > O -H •HUH 0 0 u u c £ E w c OJ 41 U C -r< M C 41 fl 0 U H r( -H 41 3 w fl £ ■HOE a 3 -H >, -H U A 41 TJ M ■H -H fl rH 01 0 4J iJ 3 O M 0) -P 0) TJ O C 41 M 3 M S •w •H £ C H 0) 0 41 0 0) -H C H fl 01 0 O < b-, 41 fl 0 M 41 im £ C a-H 3 fl M 0 £ C 41 > 1 rH £ 0 41 0 -P 0 a c rH 41 TJ M 41 O fl >i£ -H 41 DQ fl •H -H 0 C 41 -H 0 E 0 -P M 0 -H C c rH 41 41 Si 'M 01 41 ■H 0) 01 £ 3 J X TJ > fl 0 r-i fl £ M 0 (fl 41 -H -H 41 -H 0 •-* 0 O r- i-A — 1 0 4J U 0 0 0 0 a M fl 0 > M im 3 E Er- 0141 O 0 M -H 0 £ £ CU 0 -P 01 -H C O im 0 0 O 0 en c fl •n £ fl £ 0 H -P O E 0! < Q ■H 41 0 Eh 3 U)MrHUZiM4ir=3 c 3 C 0 -H Ol 01 C C -H .X 01 H M C C £ C 3 3 O 01 0 O -H -H E 01 41 im M C -H O 0 ■H .4 TJ £ 01 M C 01 _ g 41 fl -H rH fl 01 IM rH 0 M U M O >1 IM £ t)IUr. in M rN c >i 0 3 0 M 3 0) H 0 - 41 £ C IM TJ fl 01 0 O 0 M -H • H 41 O im 01 C H rH •H O O CU 0 (J -H rH X £ 0 41 CU 0 4J TJ 3 X £ 0 M C 0 H C 0 H £ M 3 £ 4J 41 41 41 01 >< M oi M -H rH 3 0 O TJ rH IM U IM fl 0 TJ 3 41 41 W C 41 'H C C fl U £ H 0 H M 01 0 > £ •> fl U C 01 0 C 0 -H .X M fl M O TJ fl TJ O 0 C rH 41 £ 3 01 3 01 Eh £ .X 0 fl O 3 E O fl • 0 41 C rH >,£ 01 O O r~i 41 *H CU 0 OHM CU C £ 0 M fl 0 -P M 3 •H 01 41 OTJ M O 0 C 3 C C U fl O O 01 0 rH t M -H 01 tM 0 M 3 01 Oi C C oi 0 3 •H 0 >, C •M rH 0 -H 0 3 fl o -h o 3 im e ot 01 TJ iH ••TJ0C4l£OIU 000 41 0 •H » C 0 C 0 41 -H C 'H •H 41 M U O 41 0«~ 0 > rH 0 C 41 » fl Cu 0 > c cm e C O fl 4J 0 M 01 0 M < > -H UO •H M Ol 41 -H O C f-t O V CUE C 41 Q, 0 -H 41 CU 0 oi a c 3 3 •« C M rH M *H -H 0 0 3 C 0 41 C M 0 O 0 O TJ 01 -H fl o £MOCCO£C— -HCM M O .TJ 0 TJ 0 O i-i 41 «* 0 IM 0 O ■P c 0 .. 3 -H ■H 01 to 0 0, 01 -H > TJ O C 41 0 00 tj e •H 0 E C O O £ 3 •» C O M >f 0 0 41 3 H fl 41 C O 0 M 0 • rH U O C -H TJ 01 TJ0OH£IM£C 0 0 0 0 M 0 3 0 im U M -H 01 41 41 O M 3 M MOCrlHO O 0 01 3 01 O -H 3 0 41 -H O £ O £ 3 rH C M 01 P TJ 01 M fl ro X -H 01 04lrHOH0C3 fl C 0 CU M 41 0 01 C M OX Ehh E 3 3 0 C 01 O ~ X 0 >*E o 0 0 m ft o c o -h 0 n 0 41 0 A X M M •H tO 0 fl CU 0) £ 0 -H rH 91 4) a er • rH 3 0 3 41 TJ £ M O -H It 0 0 £ C £ IMrH •v 0 41 ro IM 0 TJ O o N 0141 (0 O 0 O M rH 01 HW £ rH (fl c 41 C rH 3 C O0O41OOO41 3 £ 0 ■H ■H OlfU 01 01 O 'M -H a fl 4* 0 TJ 0 C C 41 O M O £ IM 01 MH 3 TJ c t-H O-H Ol M O TJ0M41O410O C o oi > o o fl u 0 41 CU A C 0) fl a • fl 0 £ im CU 0 41 fl 41 JX o> 0 m c 01 M 0 E 0 E CEOrHO-HNC o oi 0 2 M 0 3 C -H 0 0 £ 0 (0 M 0 •H C M MOO O 01 >, 4) IM rH C -H 41 0 M P 0 «M C 0 O 01 c a O fl o 41 U n •H 41 -rl O -H M 0) 10 01 fl O im 0 3 ro E 4i 0 c m a 0 0 >i £ C Oi\'H 01 3 0 C CU 0 0 0 M £ M 0 -H 10 E *1 C •H 0 3 01 M H fl £ 0 0 01 0 0 0CUE41TJO1C0 TJ 3 O1 01 rH 3 -H £ > a E C TJ 0 £ C M c 10 41 (J -r-i 41 41 0300000*1 fl • £ 0 C 0 £ 0 0 E«h XI 0 4> 0 ■H 0 IM M 41 IM 10 0 £ >n C O O fl E UH TJ 'H -H M 0 0 0 0 Oi C Cu 0 fl E M O C O C 0 01 41 3 3 0 H E 0 c 4i ok/1 oi E 0 0 HOUH£h 0) CU£ 0 3 M -H 3 O CM£ 0 rH 01 0 £ >i O 0 -H CU 0 UH * U. 0 M 0 0 0 M C 41 rH TJ TJ 4i c c 3 w U > 41 M ■H fl -H C 10 M TJ 0 0 0 C 0 c 0 0 — . C M > 0rHOCCC£M •H TJ •rl < Z E >H <0 0 0 E 04 im fl 3 » 4iiQ 12 New England Fishery Management Council Peabody Office Building One Newbury Street Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 617-535-5450 FTS 8-223-3822 October 26, 1978 The Honorable Juanita Kreps Secretary Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 THRU: Terry Leitzell, Asst. Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA/NMFS Dear Madam Secretary: This Council wishes to express, once again, its serious concern with the Atlantic Surf Clam Management Plan which extends a vessel moratorium and other severely restrictive regulations to the surf clam fishery in the Fishery Con- servation Zone off New England. There is an extensive and readily available record at this time, including more than one public hearing, letters from this council, minutes of public meetings of this Council, minutes of joint committee meetings of the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Councils, letters from concerned state fisheries agencies, and letters from industry representatives, on the total impropriety of those regulations to the actual conditions of the Surf Clam fishery off New England. I will not repeat the details or facts of that record in this letter, but only point out, once again, that it irrefutably documents that no good or valid purpose, within the context of the Fishery and Conservation and Management Act of 1976, is served by those regulations. This Council has repeatedly and patiently requested that this situation be corrected. This has not been done. The Council wishes to inform you that the Atlantic Surf Clam in its pre- sent form is unsatisfactory and unacceptable to this Council, and it cannot support the plan. The Council, therefore, requests that you direct the Mid- Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the lead Council for this plan, to amend the plan as appropriate for conditions in the New England area, and that you review and promulgate regulations that will implement satisfactory and reason- able amendments to the plan. This Council will be pleased to cooperate fully with the Mid-Atlantic Council, NOAA, and the National Marine Fisheries Service in developing rea- sonable amendments to the plan and appropriate regulations. It looks for- ward to learning of your intended action on this issue. Thank you. Sincerely y ^j^slaAJLW Spencer Apollonio Executive Director SA:jr cc: Mr. Terry Leitzell Mid-Atlantic Council 13 To the New England Council's chagrin, on November 22, 1978, the moratorium was extended for an additional year. The Federal Register announcement describing the rationale for this extension is provided here. The announcement also summarizes the changes in fishing-day restrictions during the first year of the Plan's implementation. At January 1979 Council meetings the status of the Surf Clam Plan was related. The question of the New England exemption from the entry moratorium was left unanswered. The Mid-Atlantic Council was exploring different means of controlling effort in the surf clam fishery for 1980 and NMFS felt that any amendment to exclude the New England area in the interim period would: 1) result in a loss of the moratorium in the mid- Atlantic as well as in New England; 2) need substantial analyses and an environmental impact statement, thus much work and delay; 3) result in three concurrent amendments involving considerable, perhaps overpowering, staff work and administrative procedures; 4) not be developed and formalized before the scheduled implementation of the new Plan (January 1, 1980) . Some interim relief was expected in the form of a relaxation of the number of allowable fishing days north of 41° latitude (line from off Montauk, Long Island to 14 1/2 miles south of f Nantucket Island). However, there was still no assurance that the New England region would eventually be excluded from the entry moratorium. Consequently, the Coun- cil asked NOAA Counsel to determine if litigation was an appropriate course of action. NOAA Counsel's summary of the administrative record of the Surf Clam/Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan and his opinion on litigation were provided (see February 6 memo) . He did not recommend litigation since: "There can be little doubt that the administrative record is so complex that the legal and factual issues to be argued on your behalf will require extensive and expensive preparation. Further, once the Council would be in a position to go to Court, judicial procedures themselves would be so slow as to eliminate the possibility of timely relief. Also, the Court is likely to take account of the pending revision of the Plan in fashioning a remedy; and may delay action to see what the Mid-Atlantic Council comes up with." 14 M UNITED STATES 0E3AHTMSNT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic nnii Atmospheric Administration W 30 1978 X7 TO: A - Richard A. Frank //^f'^P »— — ~ '•/ r- s FROM: F - SUBJECT: Action Extending the Moratorium on Entry of Additional Vessels into the^Surf Clam^/Fishery for One Year Beginning November 17, 1978— INFORMATION MEMORANDUM Regulations inplementing the Fishery Management Plan for the Surf Clan and Ocean Cuahog Fisheries (FMP) contained a moratorium provision which prohibited additional vessels from entering this fishery for a one year period ending November 16, 1978. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, which is the lead Council for this FMP, has requested a one year extension of this moratorium. I have taken action to amend the regulations implementing this plan to meet this request. There has been significant controversy over the inclusion of the New England region in this moratorium. The New England Fishery Management Council has expressed strong opposition to both the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Mid-Atlantic Council to the moratorium being applied to the surf clam fishery in the New England area. The Council's basic position is that the New England resources are currently underdeveloped and no moratorium is necessary. The Mid-Atlantic Council continues to support the moratorium throughout the entire surf clam fishery covering both the Mid-Atlantic and New England areas. The Council anticipates taking action in 1979 to develop an alternative strategy that would solve the problem of entry and exit in this fishery. ° Until a final strategy is developed, the Council does not want additional vessels entering the New England fishery because it feels that such vessels could then gain legal rights to the overcapitalized Mid-Atlantic surf clam fishery under the present management regime. '" I am extending the moratorium despite the controversy, since exempting the New England area from the moratorium would require a plan amendment with due public process. The Mid-Atlantic Council, after considering testimony at two public hearings, recommended continuation of the moratorium in both areas. The Northeast Regional Director, who is a voting member on both the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils, is currently discussing possible plan amendments with the Mid-Atlantic Council to resolve the difference between the two Councils on this question. However, the Mid-Atlantic Council may choose to defer action to amend the plan until an alternative management scheme is developed. CLEARANCES ^ DATE F3:RSmith (J .IruZK feftlM.) , ,/fa'lf- GC:EGreenberg PP:MGlazer A:JWalsh Prepared by: D.Leedy, NMFS, 634-7436, 11/21/78 cc: F, F3(2), F36(3), F37, EJJC, ?!AFMCf HEFfSC F3«^Kre:y£*exly:S34-743S:lV2V7e:ncU (ca :.orSClan) F35:r^!FS:DIoedy:f34-7'!3e:ll/22/7i;:cr,; [at MorGClan) 15 . *■, JEatamian «f Surf Clan Vassal Mi- .™: ■..-;■ 'Maratarrum AOENCY: National Oceanic and At- mospheric Administration/Commerce. ACTION: Continuation of surf clam vessel moratorium lor 1 year. SUMMARY: The fishery management plan for the surf clam and ocean quahog fisheries (FMP). prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Mid-Atlantic Council), and approved -by the Secretary on Novrm- • ber 17. 1977. contains a moratorium provision which prohibits additional vessels from entering the surf clam fishery for the 1-year period ending November 16. 1078. These regulations continue the moratorium for an addi- tional 1-year period beginning 0001 hours ej.t, November 17. 1978. and ending at midnight. November 16. 1979. '' - EFFECTIVE DATE: 0001 hours ej.t.. November 17. 1578. FOR FURTHER CONTACT: INFORMATION Mr. Denton Moore; 202-634-7454. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 305 of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976(16 U.S.C. 1801 etscq.). final regu- lations were published on February 17. 1978 (43 FR 6952). to implement the FMP prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Council and approved by the Secretary of Commerce for the surf clam and ocean quanog fisheries. Section 652.9 of those regulations pronibits the entry of additional vessels into the surf clam i fishery until November 16. 1978. The FMP specifics annual quotas for (the harvesting of surf clams for the 2 years in which the FMP Is to be in effect with these quotas allocated on a quarterly basis. The surf clam annual and respective quarterly quotas arc the same for each of the 2 years for which the Council specified an opti- mum yield for the surf clam resource. In the first year of this FMP. the following actions were taken to insure that the quarterly quotas were not-ex- ceeded: In the first quarter of 1978 ths fish- ing period was limited to 4 days per week. Monday-Thursday. The quarter- ly quota was obtained by March 10 and the fishery closed until April 1. J Effort in the second quarter was ini- tially restricted to 46 hours per week and then 24 hours per week to prevent the quota from being exceeded. In the third quarter, the 24-hour- per-week fishing period was continued. For the fourth quarter of 1978. a fishing period of 36 hours per week was originally specified. This exten- sion was based on a "carry-over" of the uncaught part of the quota for the third quarter, and expected adverse weather conditions. The third quarter quota was not reached and the surplus of 37.834 bushels has been added to the fourth quarter quota for a total quota of 387.834 bushels for this quar- ter. The fishing period was reduced to .24 hours on October 30 due to the - rapid rate of exploitation. Judging by the actions taken during the first year in which the FMP has been in effect, there is no Indication that the number of vessels permitted to harvest surf clams Is insufficient to achieve allowable quotas. The need to significantly limit fishing effort during 1978 strongly suggests that the harvesting capacity of the fishing fleet easily exceeds the specified quotas. The economic impacts that would rcsul'. from additional vessels entering this fishery are unchanged from those presented in the FMP. Th? New England Fishery Manage- ment Council (New England Council) . objects strongly to including the New- England area In a surf clam vessel * moratorium. Hearings were held on September 14 and 18. 1978 to obtain public comment on the proposal to ■' continue the moratorium. The New . Eng and Council commented that the ; FMj' should be amended to remove the very small New England fishery from the moratorium restrictions as soon as possible. The New England Council recornizcs the need for a mor- atorium in the overcapitalized Mid-At- lantlc fishery, but feels strongly that the moratorium applied In the New England area has served as a deterrent to the development of the fishery and has caused particular hardship to the area's fishermen. Most of these surf clams are taken from territorial waters and not the FCZ. The chief use of surf clams taken in the New England area is bait for recreational fishing. The FMP provides that the Secre- tary of Commerce may continue the moratorium for 1 additional year be- ginning November 17. 1978. The As- sistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that the moratorium shall be continued and this document con- tinues the moratorium by amending the regulations which implemented the FMP. All procedural requirements have been ruffiHe'd. moratorium "in for this action Continuation of the only the area south o7"tfie 4 1st paral- lel. as recommended by the New Eng- land Council, can be. accomplished only by an amendment to the 'FMP. The_FMP nas_not "been amended to ac- complish this._Thcreiore. the morato- rium must be continued in" the entire area or it must lapse. "The Assistant Administrator determines that the surf clam vessel moratorium Is contin- ued for a period of I year beginning at 0001 hours e.s.t.. November 17. 1978. and ending on midnight. November 16. 1979. . " — " " The Assistant Administrator further finds and determines that this is not a significant Federal action within the meaning of the National Environmen- tal Policy Act and does not require compliance with Executive Orders 12044. 11821. and 119-19. 116 U.SC. 1801 etstq.) Signed at Washington. D.C this the 16th day of November 1978. • WlNrFED H. Meibohm. Acting Executive Director. National Marine Fisheries Sen-ice. Amend 50 CFR Part 652 to revise 5 652.9 to read as follows: 3652.9 Ve*iel moratorium. (a) A moratorium which became ef- fective on November 17. 1977, prohib- its the entry o( additional vessels Into the surf clam fishery. : (b) The moratorium shall remain in effect until November 16. 1979. unless tne Secretary determines, after public hearincs and consultation with the Mid-Atlantic. New England, and South Atlantic Fishery Management Coun- cils, to terminate the moratorium at an earlier date. 16 a 8 8 e B ^ 3 ±1 3 , s u o <0 u I/) cr> 3 D 4J 0 X! Q- c td <3 O gS S5 ID ^ «1 U 8 iU C) 4J r P 4J -H u a £ 4J o 2 a i H ^< 4-> 6 x; H U-l 4J 8 3 o o L. o. S 4J O 1/1 C "O ••-■ r-< ."3 -H in *r r~t rl -H 4J > O • H en ifl o i 4J Ul Tj <-■ C 5 c 3 P C a o i-» ■H cT Jj SI i Z-' r uS C •H •a r; X-J E o c> *-< g g 17 The Council decided against litigation. The Mid-Atlantic Council produced a draft Amendment #2 to the Surf Clam/Ocean Quahog Plan in June 1979. The Mid- Atlantic position on the New England recommendation was: "the Council has been considering the recommendation of the New England Fishery Management Council that a special regime be established for the surf clam fishery in New England. There has been much dis- cussion since the original FMP was developed rela- tive to the New England surf clam fishery, whether it differed enough from the Mid-Atlantic fishery to warrant a separate regime, and if so, what form that separate regime should take. After much con- sideration, the Mid-Atlantic Council has developed an alternative for the management of the surf clam fishery in New England. The alternative provides for the establishment of a separate management regime in New England, that is, the area north of the dividing line between the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils (see figure) . In the northern area the moratorium on entry of vessels into the surf clam fishery and the effort and gear restrictions would not be in effect. A quota of 200,000 pounds of surf clams would be set for that area. The New England quota would be in addition to the quota for approximately 30 million pounds of surf clams set in the amended FMP in the Mid-Atlantic. When half of that quota would be caught, the effort restrictions operating in the Mid-Atlantic area would be imposed. Any harvest of surf clams from the northern area would not be charged against the Mid- Atlantic surf clam quota. Vessels entering the New England fishery under this special provision would not be entitled to fish in the Mid-Atlantic area and would not accrue any rights to a future direct allocation system that might be established. Vessels with permits issued pursuant to the moratorium established by the ori- ginal Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Industries FMP would be permitted to fish in the northern area, but their landings would be reported separate from their Mid-Atlantic landings and would not count toward any possible future direct allocation system base calculation." In response to the draft, specifically the 200,000 pound proposed quota and effort restriction when one half of the quota was taken, both Massachusetts and Rhode Island sub- mitted comments on the draft to the Mid-Atlantic Council (see July 9 and 23 correspondence) . Both states noted the disincentive 18 ivM.'.. ■•- *v *•** *?»■-■*'-■' £•* "■"■J ' -*■' i'- ' * 7 •»,«•' '« ■••■« 7 -~ r-- »>2 73 - a - '; P l'» A . (. : ► *> ''IT -'S. J ^- ' 'A "£ i X ' c ' "«/ * ; V»'»! >J. • ; ?l"t s.»- -»-- -• '._* J ■= ^- ■ jn- '3!! «5=',» ,— •-ST.iS--V. -^'.S -; -- ?3 - .'-•> SS'D^^^r^c^ 19 u o •» UH TJ M o>a C g T9 •H O II x o «j n c •H +i a s *J xj <• ** u • V *m n « *i <• o e o 3 O •H CO n O 4J « a m 3 ex H 4J V e J3 O 4J .£ -p u V V u £ G < M O C o •H UH C £ 3 V w c U II It •H -H 4J hDO ■U 3 W tl C V J3 Ut 4J <• Ut 3 V C 0) c « o> c r-l -H r-lfi £ ■h M in S -h -h UH u x: > o o In H •a a*J c c m it m CP 4-1 C «< U 0) I e tj £ CP 3 £ o O M •h £ i £ -u h 3 tr ■o c C tt) o •H +J .-I oi C 3 • O IB 2 •h £ 4J xo 19 (lot 3 vo ■P 41 •H XI 41 w £ c -u 10 10 ox: a p 3 «J H o 3 C ai cro H 4-> 4J 10 <0 01 Ul 01 •H uj in u o 0J rjj u ■ £ •u in -y 10 XI E O Ut U uh O uj in oi c £ o o e ** e io o o o u in -h •H in cptj O -H h 3 a ui > o 4) tj Ul c (0 o 41 -u Ul 3 o «*: O' x i . dl'OS'-iiw O -H t^ ID iH e c ^o io • u u 3 >. E H •u 4-1 X) l-i 3 x: >4-i 4-1 -H ai x: 3 c in 14 3J= - 4-> in >. V4 x: m o) 3 0) 4J •O 10 » c 3 >.3 r-t O TJ >.H C Ul 4-> O 4) C o x; io ii in h W-H4J . in o> U 3 • o (J*<44 tP c c H C r4 4J o x: u -h in o in -h an <«-i oi > l-l r4 in •a . C 4-) 4J O 4J ■HE 13 D> 3 01 Oi C C -O XI 3 10 fl •H 4J O tTi 10 01 >i«-l c x; xi r-i 3 4J u O 4-> 01 01 10 O1 oj r-l .* 0 01 >-l -H Vj E -I -4 a 3 3 in -4 >, 10 l-l rH XI (0 a* u o 01 4J . c x: 4J 01 01 <-> X) 4J XI in io u •a c (fl oi o u m >, oi r-| «J£ in E 4J -i E r-i rrj in *J H rH —I B) 3 o oi 3 in io io oi uj in x: Ui M 0) X 3 3 > 0) <0 C ' o -a •H c 4J 10 c CP 41 c x: Cd 4-1 inoiin » -h * in m "o x) m 3 4-1 4-> 4) nj E £ 41 GT3H 3 41 4J <0 3 TJ ■•H > "O in c 41 •H 4J 10 M-4 O O -H . o in 10 O O -H 4J ao in an o H E u sz o in >4-i •H r-l 0) xi x; <0 4J 4J u in x xi < r-i 0 in 4-> C o 4J -H C 4J 0) 10 4J O c o 01 10 x: E^ -I 4) in in 41 > 41 in 4i in C in xi - •H 41 r-l > >lH T) TJ TJ Ul O 0) 01 rH C 01 C ui in oo io x: 3 C O O-l r-l OT o oi a.«-i tr-H <_> 0 O C i*4 ■rl U| o u oi nan EX 3 41 4J Ul 4J a x: > in &■ y oh h 4-> C C rH 01 Ul 10 10 H SX XI 3 41 3 4J 41 4-i in 3 3 ui ui 3 c ui T> 3 O O -H O 01 D. O X O 4J 10 X (0 io >i in 4J ui >a • h o in 4» " ' 4J X 3 -H in in o 4-i o r-i ■•^■ri 3 C 4-> H U-l (0 (0 4J 01 rH TJ 4J Eh 0) Ul 4J r-l >, E 3 c oi ai tj in 4) x >,£ C E-uhu 01 TJ 01 4J ECITCCH i0 n) 10 -H 41 r-l r-l C Ul H oi cr> io in ui 3 X C E C 3 4J CU O O 41 h r>. C 3 4J 4J in tj •h oi io «j r-i a Z Ui U 01 4-i 4J (0 o in .o c oi Q-r-i in oi 41 X 01 rH 0) Ui TJ 4J in io > 4J 0) e> 10 a in I H 01 H C X X 4J O 4J 4J Ul 41 4J 4-1 CD (Ti 41 0) o X) C 10 OJ X E XT' U 01 c 0 4J TJ ■H 4-1 10 11 U in 4J TJ id C C 41 fl) X X 0) e 4J X E o 4J 0 ■ -H c o i-> 0 r-l XI o (1) Ul 3 -S-l 01 a c Ul « 01 c •H in E 0 ■H 2 CL4J X 0 in M 4-1 u a) Ui S rHTj » rH c c CM ■H id -H 3 rH • Di in 0 « c ■H 2 0 U X V) 4-' 4-> r-l 3 c < 0) J 0) 10 "44 41 3 I ■H >1 o i-> r- c -H E m 4-1 c to — 1 O 3 Ut a c 4-> Cn Ul o 0) in o Ui X ■H a a4J a 4J 0 01 "44 c 4J 0 0) +j m 4J in u o c 10 •H o •H r-l ■44 iH o c 3 4-> O 3 ■H X (J O 4J X 01 01 4J X C X H 4-1 -H 4-1 3 O TJ - >. 4J 01 >i Ul TJ 10 01 in 3 3 X 4-> rH 01 X O 4J -H &> C 10 «-l •H H X Ul 4J TJ 41 C •44 X C Id O: M r-l CP .* - c o — . w id o in rH H 41 3 4J in oi tj c o 2 c io a UH^ ;■ -H 4J 3 X tr< Qi4-» . C I = u tj tr ui in ■h c o tP 3 E H <4j c 41 Ul -H 2 o> X H 0) 4J X 41 C O 3 . -H -H iH O •H r-| O 'H — in x in -h C 3 X » O Qi 10 3 : H a oi 4J ui a > 10 O O r-4 •H UtJ H 10 4J O Oi c fl rH (U > O C rH S QI "H Ul Id Cu TJ 4J 0) H 4J rH TJ C rg rH 41 01 Id TJ id in tj o id 41 u jc. 41 4J X E 4J c <0 N 00 •H C7> in r-4 4) "■ C rH TJ 41 Ui TJ Ul 4-> 4) X m E rH 3 c r- TJ in C E ro (J) rH in x 41 O N Ul •H O, in c .7 E ^ —4 rH 144 O o 4-> in id in 4-> 4) 0) in in 3 4J C d h 01 E -a TJ C C (0 01 E TJ < Ul id C O id x a, r: o 0) X 4J E- 10 •X 4) 0) Ui Cr TJ 10 c O- in 41 Ul a TJ 41 41 I X 4J OJ 4-> 10 C rH Ul 10 TJ 4) O C tj in io 41 4-1 41 Ui - > O Ul <0 UH 4) X <4H 3 41 in oi 41 Cr S trc TJ H oi in O. Ul 10 O TJ 01 3 Ul O-MH O o c in -h 3 Ui 4J oi in • 10 -Q 3 E 4-" E X 3 in 3 4J -H C Ui 4) <4H O X TJ rH 4-1 4-> C 10 10 io x ui 4J 4-> o 4-1 C c 41 O E T> 01 CP >. TJ Ul 3 41 ■nX in in h • <4-4 rH •H 01 O X C 4J 3 O c U H a oi id 01 N o -H TJ 01 u in c x 4H m o 01 cp 4-i >, in C 10 4J H X 4J -H rH 4J U) >4H U H O c o tjl c ■H 4J RJ in O 4-> XT- V O (0 c IH ON x; H o -D x +4 4) Ui '4H X UH 3 41 4J O 4-» E 3 41 id tj o o H C X 01 O Id SO TJ fl >1-H ui a 03 >< Ul Ui 41 O X 4-) in (J H 41 lu u u H 01 C > id •H •-< V 4J 3 ■< U I 41 TJ X -H U £ •H tj H rH o m c 3 rH o id U Ul 01 4J TJ C 0) 41 [b E 0) in tPrH 10 rH C IN 10 S E o O 06 TJ U c a io X u7 4-1 4) Ui > O o 2 a c X O >-) u 10 4) a rH 4-1 U) i0 Mh 4) X id -H 0) M x a c 01 o x 4J in oi c CP 14 o 01 4J x x c iO in 4) 3 •h e a k. E o c 4) U (0 C 01 ■H O U 14 4-> O id s in tj c E (0 c O ■H 4) U > 4J ■H D in 4J 4-1 4) in 3 X (0 VH Ul in 3 i/i • Ui c 3 41 fl O X rH 4J a, o o 4J c U 4) ,4_>UUl4->4-ITJ 3 idcaoiioojoic H4J O3uixin'd uc •H rHHJO34-lOrHfl)O01 Uri 4i u « aariw e c3<>-.0oa,x xidoi (r)U_| IHDflEUHlflrU' rl BTjrl >1 4) O "' 4->inH30)TJtninaidE > c (0 O rH H 10 4) X rH 10 <0 ui ui oi a < 0) E «H i o tj u oi ai 10 c 10 E 3X24J4J<0rH>C4l O CP > > 3 O C C O 4J H H <44 in O S «i4) tnc ho)3j<;3 4) 4) (J TJ 0) 14-1 "44 • TJ E 3 C X O O Ui C 0) 4J 41 10 O • 4J >, c ui in o 4-1 iOO c30)iooMHOTJinai4J>i OlinXEiOCCCiOE 4J E Ut in i4-i4!irjidfl)-Hin-H •h 3 -h 0) ui rH in ui ,-H fi<4HrH 3XTI CP4J4J 4) 4) a .oo4Jcco3C> fc: 4J U> 10 >i-H H U4 v- C CP 01 OM04J 3X xcin UIOXHX 3OT4JH UJl03OinrH0l H-HrHO) o tj 3 cr -h oj io 2 3>Hx 4J Id CT 41 X 'H Ul 4J H4J oi s 4) a u h >, j £OCC rHTJX Ul in ininididia34)4J 4iui4) ai E U U 3UiUC4)-HOXininO X 3 44 rO 3 0 O \ >. E (0 M rH O U ■ HrH14H UI4J C-H >,Ul X "4H Cb H O <44 in O H 3 C U TJ TJ o a c c - in 4-1 TJ Ul 3 ra 0) O 41 10 O Ul N 10 ,-t 144 -H CP4J X Ul 144 4) -H H i) 4Ji44UlUl34-ll0ld_ 31443 O -H CP-H Ul 4-1 M Ul O id in TJ -H 01 O «H -H o 4J d>44U|rHO CU 144 41 th 11 id 144 41 in ui id • "4-1 x: xrH-HXU4Wiao«nii 4-1 TJ 4J CPTJ 4J O 11 rH C C 41 H E o en x 3 c 3 UH fl 3 4J -HOW Cb -H G 01 4-1 u< in -H •H rH rH IT) X U 41 id -h x 4J 14-1 4-1 in h o o 4) 4J a c in h 0) 4) X 4-1 41 U TJ TJ in C rH > o Ul a x o -H X 3 II > id O 4-1 4-1 01 TJ 4) 01 3 -h '4-1 H O ■ 4J 3 m id 4-) C ui 0 cp ui •H o 4-1 0) UH IJ Ul •H Id OJ Ul rH 4-1 T) 10 tn c 01 <~, Ui ui r- id cp OJ •—! CP u 41 > 01 3 O 4J X id c o o -J X o t^ c OT 4-i 4J O Ul 3 0) U X in ui in 0) -H x x in 4J Ui Ul O 3 'J) O TJ >. 0) in 0) 0) c Ui H 01 3 E 44 4) tr-H X O CP E Cp id 01 (TJ 3 M -4 O >1 U Ul rH 01 •H X 4H 01 Id 4-1 > G Ml -' ■■'-' Ui 3 . in x u-i o in id 4J 4J M O 3 r- (T id 41 • U4 in id X ^-> TJ c o rd O rH O CP » c o w o in 3 41 0) 2 X 4J 41 X Ul 4J o U-l Ui o 01 UJ ■H in 01 id 4-1 X id 01 0) E X 4-1 E id 01 rH •H U 4-> U-l id u X 3 3 01 » UJ 4J O 01 Ul ~. H 01 lb rH 0) X 01 3 X id : c x o 01 •H -H 4J tb ■H TJ 4-1 id id Ul X 4J 4J C X •h 3 O TJ C C id in H TJ c 0) id tj « Ui -4 0) 4) CJ CJ'TJ IH x c c o 4J Ul Id UJ rH OJ 4J3 Ul id 4i X 4) X 2 O X 4J Id u - r~- E r- id cr> 4J c 01 uj *-* O U 0) E c O UJ 14-J N O C 0) •H Ul o TJ X 0) 01 4-1 UJ -H UJ L) O C • 0 01 H X 4-1 rH Id > 00 Ui in 0) r-l 01 - C iJ3 O 00 U IN >i 01 Ui id 4) 3 01 10 TJ O 4-1 01 41 CP 4) id C X 4) Eh 3t> 01 c C 01 10 41 • 10 X TJ OUCH 41 00 -H 10 TJ X CP UJ rH rH CP O C rl C4J 10 G o w OHlH 3 4-1 4-1 41 4) •H IH > 2 O H UJ UJ tH UH C 41 1) U c 4J C r- ut 4-1 to 10 rH 41 -H E E O 01 C H >i E M 3 41 H X Ul uh oi in O HE TJ Tj Id • C -H rH 0) 4) > U x a o x ui uj uh id Ul ai a u 01 D Ui a o o o 3 O M 10 01 OH 4) » 01 O 41 01 3 X 11 01 CP4J X IN 4) 4J > 41 a 0 X O 01 4-1 4) 4J rH 4) E 41 O >i 10 > > T3 Ul 01 -H 41 .01 3 T3 X OJ tH 01 X 01 M •H 4-1 01 41 uj 1) X - O 4-1 *J 0 Ut O 3 3 3 01 uh cr ■TJ id 4-1 41 10 55 c c "3 O o •— > '/. — — *- o o n ■— u u c *x •- ' — -us 3 c 41 3 £<- — C C -. — u — = 11 — rt ; T « C 'J i^ — • V, O ■— k. *j 4-» u -3 c c COV-3-3CEO n o c "3 n ■- o — < +1 —i O 4i — • 41 IT vi- • k. 3 c o o X V. •— Cl O 3 E x n *-> <-i if. ^ Cr. «J U I— O ' R 3 X n u c ♦-> >. vi «j o 3 I- VI •■-' viu-o*»>*«» o o _> o u "-ih m u\ - •-» 3 C *-i 3 3 «i *4 3 If, K If. X U C •w <"J C C C «»- O ._ . o •»» u- o «-> «-* i- : *S O to vi O u R c- C "BTi li o K OX C r- *J k- — C U OS o *j c O <-* 0<*- 3 O •x s o -x c in w (j u: .#h •»* X ceo >- H<« O O U •*->>» o i-i •.-• c x in if •• o n « c •« ii *j oc r, 6 ii'ssn c o v> o l- x ox ••k *-> O C *J o — - *■> O If, u H Ih r-« o O G O t-l k. C X V) fsfnvino.— OMo r. 3 c *j .1-1 ♦-> *>- x x ♦-> x-H n O O O C >-i o 3 •«-• n o n > cr m w (9h wif u !• O* •-• rt in o •• 43 >i X o -i-i n v- i- < - O O H X 3 -n O - in cu cr n © < O 4-4 tl O'+IN^ Ci- n -x "c o oo*JM«->rtrt«4-u. t- «*• tr. u o c u. e c «*« o o o o n o R£ o >£ t) r_ *-" 4-i x —i «i x 3 <— 4-> o H 4-> *1 O U 3 *4-i c - — ci cr c O t-> E O Ji — . UN C VI U£ tl <— « CC ^ S ()3£n •7- •— «4- X- 4-4 IA I— W 1> t- ._ *-l o *-• o — -^- o u •M c o r: (— 1 u U 1 — n c r: c •— « >. c >- c- L', 1/1 ^, , U V. a — G1" 1/5 o c 1/: E O • u ~ 1- d 3j; in l/l 3 rj 4-i o O -ii 'i-l e i- c E • C O If. o cv O 6 OtJli C ra rj *j vi E v. tl ■a «-■ ti c c •-! es t> •« «1 > C t. — . O <*4 k. ■-I <4- C. 4-> -r4 M to > c U «4- .r4 t) o .= in v; — vi — ■• c 4-j <— a U C J- r ti c •O tSi-l !f. If. O o v. ^r u r; v. c 19 c E c tl c c o 11 > c o o E c -3 t) >8i; ••4 I- > C- u —i o *-" r: u _-: rj v, C- c o > VI 4-» (ft u o c c rj vi E ti u fl -4 o r. u o ^- ^ 3 r ^2 3 if no >. 4-> —1 C 4-1 C c 4-> C 3 O O U ~ o t) ^r — t 4-» »- o In •J c U. 4_i ^, c c >- l; l". •— o ^ u u ^ t. 4-> ti c — 3. C — *3 4' 4-i C c r; o • o o r. c - t U- — c L. 0 •— — n C XL v. co •^ tl 4-1 — >- JZ — 4W — 4J 3 C WHO" 1 O 4-1 O C t- < v .„ o ' *> If. "3 v. "H r: -4 . n r: ct <— t, 3 ti X. C" »- t-. 4-1 o rj c VI •— o XI 4-i c o -4 C »- « c o C 4-i v; C < If - 1 .-4 O C "3 > C. -4 4-> — ' n ; •». vi VI <— Cl - o o sz o o 4-» »-» X C O O C O "3 ■" f> C *-i >. c: rj C ti O C > V, O "4 »- O r- 4-> 3 «-• ^i n v. o a o o O E O O m G « r- - v- r C. u>- L. -. C ■■'■ c C t/ E C C 73 — t, o o v. rl *J ^, O O *•- I. O I- CL V- - 3 E u- t' Ifl — o 7! _- t, C W. V. >H r, c (i >. i» - r. c — t"v c ^ "c — O tl V. «-" •~ x: c c 4- *^ ra ti u r. E — c « -r. u c Cl c *-• t' vi vi u E ti 4-> o n u .- I— E C 4-i — i ti n c — c. «— ci e 0 O ii Ci .r" -*4 O 4- ti in c C — X. ■n £ V) V. in 3 •- 3 o e -a c a-4 x: E s -« 4-- E-" < one n ' c. **- 4^ a O O Vl Ci •-4 £ I. 4J C 3 ^" 4- tl X. — 4 n c c «_i 4^ .— C O C k- ~"^J Cl. 0«- 3 - OCO ■3 E >- -4 r; o 4-1 .— ' — - s c -3 >. 4-i O I*" V. ■— > O 3 -> O — n — c c 3 C — 41 C- o c *- • n,-i r u C 3 n c c • c ^ E t t r. ^ E (7. »•— 4- o -J • o - Ui — • u Cl 4-> • tl > V. • '.'. jr. -r- o fc- •^ 4- U r* o c. t. "3 >, >- c <— c x c o Cl CO Cl 4-1 Cl e o O ■— <4- O 3 O t> Ci X. O "*- I- i-i VI o c s-mC O -i •H iH O 4-1 I- C o rt o o 3 VI 4- O c "o O v. u c c >. O V) — 3 W3 4-> C •O .rl tl I- ■ t, V4 V. <4- X. • 4-> O O 4JS". Ci ti C -3 • i-4 4-1 > o c E C c ~< VI o O ti c c c o ;< — o > . c • c «- 3 r: c • 4-1 C 4-1 Vm C c~. tz V, w- v. ^ Ci tl c. *j r: 3 E vi v. t rt o ■ V. 4- -3 -^ C C O C - c. 3 4-> n C 3" «~ I- V. £•. C C O C- O Ci C O 4- E O i — ■ K C <— i~. o u c -I-i. — — " 4-1 Cl tl C ■3 C "3 V. > «- Ci O ti — < >N C" i: c> u E -3 U.C C «4- V. O — C •— 4-1 4- ct u- 3 x: >. r: in c et t- «v — C O cl if, — _3 VI .3 "3 O V. 3 •*4 t. 3 Ci v. c ct cr o o tl v. c e e c — c n n — E Cl Cl Cl V. UJ I- C ti E-4 «4I C: ti « •« ■O^ Jr4 • 3 O "4 <— 4-> >>«-> — I*- 1-4 C • ru. I- vi 3 — C 3 3 O W O 4J C ■— -F- O x: ct > c 4- O 4-i ■t» 3 X >4-i 4»X. «- X I— —4 eg 4- * E I-. C vi • E O • Cl C Ifl 3 c v> jr: c <-" VI i^- 4-> *~ O rt V) 4-1 > COR - O U ■—1 Pi O — 1-4 rt o »- 4-1 I-i 4- 4-* o e tx v. e -3 O O O O 4- E "3 t- V. ■-4 tl > -3 O I- Cl u c rt c c I- -co in c c r- er ?. < c u. «- U c Z c E >- s f f i ; . . -* ^> ex -3 r> - c 7L *— | c c £ c 4? ~2 V < u. C c P > c < c a UJ C Im C UJ :-■ -o o O X u. C 6 O i3 c tf. s X c c UJ !£' c i- c .-* a 1> V. > jT c Q^r^-s: o c 3 a U 4- Cilf) i—4 JT •-* o t— l Cl >>M e. u p-4 Ii o • • ox: e Ifl 4-1 Vl Ct 4-» C o -4 If) 1) O Cl u. " d Ifl »1 jt rt >,— 4 O OU Cl S »- q .r, -a x. o fr. «-i ,-, i— * o c s ■a o c > o cc ^t •-* r— 1 »-4 o Own rl •-, 3 < t- JX U O ' tl 4-> O • ci tj -a Ii > 1- K --4 O c c ; ~ ~: '—■ x c t- c - 3 O v. ■ 41 "3 GO E " C .- - O - ^ v c; -3 *— 3 -■ '-. f. V c 4" rt *3 .^ co^rcf-1-— Ci C C — P- -T. _r • — X • 1— — .-4 1-4 . .h r i: c R >< l- v. rt U ,■ L- 4- CT ", ' 3 h.h n ck : L 3 c V c C C —■ 0 C OOCC O — "3 vi C C 1- U 4-i ( . -.' '.I *- 3 c c -- ; •3CI- 3-^4--^- CC i C rt .*.: .-- • - c •— - X •— l 3 rt V) — 4-i '.'. 3 " — *— — • ■ '— t - *-•,*- 3 *4 r* 41 3C t r-C3— 4-.^. utit - •- E c r CLTJ >-;oy „ rt o r- ^ —or - r ' 1 3 ti r 3 C — ' O • l- o E — • -rt •- t .— iy 41 k- 0 04-1O o •— u. rt jc •J tl > . 4- Ii u <- X 3 C W.-H R- . > 3.4J "3 V. 1- rt •- >. : c C i nl- u UtJ C Ifi R -Clt C «4i C tl -rt '- • ' 3 41 — - C C C > C Ci >,.3 V. -3 rt l- O -3 --J -—3 rt r. O ti X OOI-iO O 1-4-1 c 3 'J v: c . u E > V. %m 1*4 i— I VI C/i— i "3 *i O rt C rt — 3 C —14-1^ tl C4->C V, I— JC 1— — I-.. .»- «-> "J c. l_ inCk f-4<. 01-1-4^030*^ " •-4 <*4 r:r: OOOO •3 i X C- O — "3 Vl -i C c> E E 3 o ly — 71 •— -3 OJ33C0CV. -4-1 •3 C rt 3 — C JC i-i- >. 3 ._ .« O I- c c — c E rt r- £ .- — — o. ri 4- k. '— —• c •17' j; wo— i-3c •- 1 U 4-> o 1- 4- 3 — 3 O O O •4«ci4»4eio-E ^ T f. r t- — V c > k. -a o •- o o j; o i- «- .- O 4- C 4- *. 0.1- CJCCUt«-3C4V>CCE ■3 x jr s v- i,-, t, rt C E *4>- O 4-i •— C 4-1 O E C4-*04JV-'--c« 3 O C O C 3 O VI U- o rt r-. rt 3 3 1/ > -3 .— ci O j;4KlCOC£C l-O n c c E i-o E rt c c- 0 VlOCt (_••-, C.4-1 l-O .£ jr - c r: u .— i^<-C •-4 C -CC-4JOEU- if. oh Ct-- jr -3 -i 0 0 >. u-vi— .oct-Tac-^ ►• .-> to 4-i cr C 3 .3 *4 I-.I-—4 C-30rt03 U- C k- tl(IC 73 O » <4i o o 4-» o "-juEjcv: C • C «-> if -i •"• o .-4 — If O jO O C -C "3 CX 4-> V4 t- rt <-i v; r; — • 4-1 O JC O -4 E x: rt 4-i c 'Cio *4- 0 C O <— ■ — 4 O J3 -.1 X £ > X CO i-i C84JV1JSCO U C '. k , O w. f- OEE4JO 3. i>-*4 COR O O V. 41 C -1 •44 rt < 4-1 4-> C f O 3 V. rt c »- vi o >-i • c c o 4-1 ov. •— » ii o "• y C' e" . — . 0 •-4— 0"3— »* V. "7J > 4-1 .1 1-4-1 -i-1rt4-4 -<3 O *J O C O 41 O U X 3 •4-~0»- K sh > c • k- -rtoc 41 3 *i •—• 3 aTJI- U3-3 Ifi CC — -41 X 1—4 ♦-» 41 O " — — k- C3C0COOOOI-G f. 4-> 3 — vi 41 c C - rt VI C O 3£ t c C o O C ct*- • 4i 0 m g 0 4-, -4<~4 0C4->OX> • O -3 4-1 X. C O c C O C -74 -*J-3lij3« l-l-O >— o *J rt — c • O "3 I- - VI • i« c e tiffin twe 1— 4- r I .-4 n G C ci vm o o c 4-1 o if. ri • J-. e o i. •— c —7 41 41 C rt rt04->x»irt ci3 C 1- "4 -3 rt rt U . C — k-.-l C. O 4-1 O 4J Cl OJ lfl-3-3«4- 41 l- v. jr i— rt; Ci C X £ ifi 1- rt > «— C 4-1 C O 4 O 11 *-» C -3 3 E .1— 0 O • 4-> "3 O •— >- -rt in JC 3 -ri C E rt rt 41 1-. JC 0 dooc rtoc n c I7--3ECC— 33 •J 'J 4-» J».t— HiSifa -4->oor_«-> O C ■•* •i r: •— x "3 rt 1- -3 oo4-i4-ijenvic oo n •- ^-1 U t> k (J O (" "3 Ml •* •■" >s O O 4-> JC 3 4-' -3 k. O V. c 0 vi *4»-xiJcoco EE00034-IC 0 C 0 jc 3 in —i » c n ■■/! n E 03 rl 3nvi4-»c— rt*-i r- .-4 U-O 0 rt 3 -h -3 1- »- E CO 1- •»« — 1 C C C — 1- 0 k. O C C- r OMf- i"3v-406 o 4-1 k. o o c 7* r> -j k- •-OO*- E oxu «4i c o •,-. o e v> Ifl o u c c «*- t. o t— O 0 Ii •— C Ji 30 rt rtOrtO o *4 • — i O O J -• ci js ^tj > tjr« l, e oc -- O •— — — ■ — -i wo 0 k. X • « O CCCCl4-lciO ouo Ii p. V. rt C >-i XI rt O k- O 4-> —i QdO'Hf CXMlf O k *-• O • Of. E 3 E •■ — c— .7 k k - j3UnniUEjr .C- t~ Z_: cc o -4 — v. »• r: - 41 vt 3 3 1- 4-> o 3 -j 4-1 o E c .3 O '44 V. 3 in c n ii-HSE .:rto 41 O O VI ft "3 •— (f — -s 0 o o c rt o c -•• —> c >»- • j: 3 rt o x r: • ►: ct — 0 C M^— >y R On u « o '>-':jur.O; - .: — 0 x. 1- O ' *- *- c * 0 • <— v. cr. — : *- k 41 c v. 3 0 4- 3 r- v. O -3 1 .— — If C *3 "3 t O rt XX — k. — C C -' 0 0 0 rt O O rt f- rt V. 7, •— •30 3 «r "3 X 4— 0 CJrt >. - 3 3 -J C 4-> O 41 k- O • *- — 4-1 -3 O C • — rt 4- ci ox c:- v. if. u 0 r: — W-004W-;— cc U k. X .„ .-, .- rt rt > c rt rt c; -1 X —4 C*J *' '"• -1 C P >3 j: O C C v. 41 O O 1— V. O O — 4 rtC X >.w- .- c- v, — . 0 C r» *1 4-4 O •: C O 0 O *• t- O k- > C rt 0 0 0 v. C- "3 4-> r— C — 4J k. M O cv. or~3>4-io ■*— f— O rs 0 > U R -1 U X 0 •- - >. 0 .•- JC 41 O 4— i" O C 41 0 0 V) "3 O "3 •— O ifl Z r- U .- c — 3 rt V. U O O O t—rtk"4i*Jtli3>-4 >. E<4" 41 •— C ■— 4i t- -4 O C- X If *> 4W k- •/■O k 0 1 0 rt 0 k. «*- c •— 0 k. k. 4-1 O JC O C CSX C O 1 k. VI JC 11 Ok OCCC rt — «i 0 0 i. — c — t- 0 c k- "3 in - C "W in -i4 C O C •-4 c •— 0 0 ~ C rt > 0 rt 1- — c jc v> .n • n .H O O ■— 4-» O »-i r-4 • 3 4J k C k. JC O VI 11 c 111 : r ox vt 0 O 4 0 -3 0 c r: «-> v. X 0 — u c c t_; 0 0 41 1- (J 3.1 — -3 in > *-> • E 4-4 0 n 0 O « O a: 0 fc j: c k, c cc* rt •3 *- T3 «v O rt C 0 0 1- ci no ,i c, k j; m t JH.H1 Ck E CUO r- O O C O 0 C ;i4t. c c- 0 r.'. 0 -3 C"«- c OOO^- *—• .— 1 •• C k- 41 O 4> 3 C 14- *J VI O -1 O C- O JC 4-4 C rt O in c C ri ** X 4-1 X- * 0 00 iH 0 rt Cl ♦> > M- -J ■ *3 X Ci >. k- >- O Ifl k- 41 0 l>- C X V one C nS — li- - • i x 0 O OO -4 T3 0 C ^4 •44 ri • O k- O •0 >xt> *J «■> 4-1 m c m c-*4 • c t- 0 rt- C- n — . 0 0 kcnuu k- U m .74 c_ k» O. in 0 c 0 0 rt ♦* 0 3 O XX 3 C. 13. exx n •- x C£4-> T3 O O O 0 C «3 3 3 C k4 If. O "3 rt *- • O O O -74 C. 4— 41 r; 0 0 li X V) OSOECHk «w O. O . JC 0 Z 0 — JC 0 t— V C X ri *j 'x cr"3 •— n <*■ «C,.r4 .1- *4 f— CTV I- «> »ts c ••- -a ai x: >,»-• *> t- v. a. 3 o ** ♦> _ ai «*> -^ — «• -*- ••— l*_ x» *~ 3 r- « *> £ D J C X3 *• '" 7 • "C "> ft't" v» _ t 3— Co 3 ai g >> E O «, «t _tO ft — NfiTr«e.3! w x: 3 *j o o a. >- x: r- oi£ •• «N 3 *J V , _ ~4 U £ J- » TJ UJ at vi o Si — Q Z Si; l:-« * E iZ E c «-> x- *^ -£. S ° o 5 E o - ** «- ■«= Q X> *J •— • 8 3 Ul o o * fc 4* v,1*- o e « £ ct « *v> e ci 5 ° «» c £ _ 3 s < x: v " -o o V.XJ tJ J u. a. 5? Ui - "-^ o .ft *- * o ° <• t- ft(M *- 4T «l » o» < 5 E 0 3 TJ cn,j I. *$£ • * e -c ^ >• e *J T> 0> < o >-• c v. d> — < z ♦-» ^ L ^- U ;y JJ coo«iiot C 1i >. TJ TJ 1 • O L xi oi a -O u ^ -o wi o ■H 0 -H u ^ T! u -i vi b ^ • 'J i~4 ifl o ,u -a ■a 'U B •.j " o e •n TJ M .. b 3 tl 1) « " » • :? S '• « a * <= ■3 -5 J | 3" 01 0 u a. 3 • " a w ■ 01 ■r-l 3 li a c i* o •J o> m _: a. b ~ 01 1) 1-1 b u 0 4J 5! • wo00 O — 1 a. 3 ** 2 * c £ a. D 3J- J = b 0 01 —4 ■s 33 « a u 0) 3 O U XI X u e 2^r§ u 01 > 0 .0 -3 0 J" B b b y .„ -0 o ^ 3 2 2-3" ■j> o ^ - -> ■$ s * %■ 2? 3 r> ~ 3 a V 4 3 1) L. o c w C O 0 « _ a) b U u -8 £ j- ai 0 U" i - '- 11 _ ai 0 a e —4 01 .3 'U •0 '3 a 01 > 0 °° - « u 3 " 3 9) O y fj b rl 5 • 7> c 3 O 01 -J) u li C " "l e JS O -j * S ° 2 > y1. 0 -a ~4 a. f 01 Li «i O u b ° O u ■1-4 li ~> H%% LI tl u C u . — 4 "1 u -n u 71 0 • i --H - 3 a 0> O -> .a IJ o u U 1 j u-> :t .•^ 0» • '4-* ■>, ■~4 U O — * V - r. -1 u (-. ^ _■ I 3 c •3- C 0 g "l .-. 3 u 1 n 3 C O 01 0) O -0 _< .. U M U-l 11 r: a d 50 ^ Li 01 01 £ ■-! -° e c 01 ?2 " ?. O = "-I % Li LJ -) ■<: J) 1 c p -I SI ■a *! :|3I 11 ^ J ^ . ^ B u S I -3 3 3 'Jl s . 3 o >■ £ "2 3 O L. t: x: Li g ? T 0) % ° £ r: O ■J u-, •• m D u « J 3 0 "5? .^ O 01 Li 3 -= O O •Jl S -I Z 'LI 01 c o X $ LI U " 1) - 2 >• s ^ ^ u S "^ -• c -3 c 01 •/) 01 - -H O ^H ui 3 li .j —I ~ r$ •** in Q- p 3 •« u "> o a 3 -" u „ t 01 -3 o •/) 5 -j .a 01 - U ^ U LI •3 ■J) U -4) Li 2 01 V 3 C C L. S 53 s J" ^ L >j II 3. L. D o) 'fl -a 3 a.* " «° * -1 H —I c o ^ H 3 3 . % 'J >. ^ « L. 1. e ° o ^ • a j r _ li 0^ n a a. o 8 u 9 a J! n e ^ -^ e - E 0 *■ oi y _ : « J a > ^ ■iH u x; £ a tj o ■ o r) a -t o 01 w -j, 3 3 o CI * 3 " L, T3 -3 Q - "5 ° ^31 3 "J » -3 a 3 -fl 11 J3 nj •* a O y « o v) ■oox n 'M a u n « ^ ii ■-< 9M U 3 >, Li _ 'J V 01 X! IB 3 3* a! ^ 3 H "3 O ■/I ^j a u 3 LI ^-3 u oi 7) XI c LI < -3 8 H -■0 cr h a u U ~i a 01 3 3 ■£ -1 « » u H 3 ^ -a I J3 = - « 11 a u-i -a 01 w 3 1 a LI ^ ° a u Li U> J) O x: oi a U 3 Jl 10 01 T3 l> a a _ _i ^ ^ n O o X) O u 2 j3 13 a LI 3 °-a 'J! -3 TJ 01 "J •10 •/) a 3 n» r x: b ■j o c a •»—'.—'• o » 'J "-0 "iO w Id id -r^ V C 0) 01 3 3 U 01 U 1-1 ^ 7. a 01 u .a c: u •/) U OH a 01 a '■» ~j a 01 _: una - LI 3 U '■*-* "H — • Li >/) .rf O "• O 3 U LI (J a ■« y a O T 2 I 01 x: . 01 u l, a o o U XI •li S a u O •-* 'fl C c -^ II e y .,1 -a l. IB -J O a °- li 0 2 " •H ^ Li 3 .« - a m J3 id 31 01 » LI = -• -1 < 3 ri 01 1 it ^* >> ■rt 1. "^ *4 ^H 5 5 -LI "* ■? 3 „ V a 01 Zj -• u n a o a 01 tj m > • 3 lj a ~j '4-1 a wax: o tj a LI y u 01 'J D TJ IB 01 01 ->0 -4 li in O 0) c M LI o a 3 o 3 3 a « -r -1 ts 5 0) to N N U J) > — U -rf ° O -H C in u 01 to 7) J3 ., 2 t*. _ O -H IJ qj t4 C u > _ « 01 o 01 x; xi 3 01 b 7) 10 -B 01 a u li HM 3 J £m h) j: 7) _ IB LJ ■" c e 01 u fl o r: -( ■h e 7) ») tj m V " 1. L u C IB TJ . o x: ■» ~ tH li y -1 li -5 ^ » a *h jj c Qi o 1-1 « J: H ,M x: g « -> 3 „ r* — . o S TJ «H P -T u IB I 2 OJ-^L, Li a 'J <" '* ^ •S -ij Ul II - - 3 J •J) 93 II a !! a a w TJ a 71 J> U LI a * LU Li -I -1 3 3 0 3" 3 TJ a 01 3 2 >B a 3 a. •« 01 -a ^ Ll u a O B x: o ^> c •_i a Li ¥ Ol V Li 6 <: •? £ XI > £3 01 01 Li U u ^ ^ 3 a j0 - 3 O •3 l~- U (T. a _ 0 0 ■rJ. r> u 4 0) J3 V g 1 1 y i> ^ r O 'i-< x: a> JJ> 3 r*. 0 r^. w fTN x: TJ =3 01 o> 3 _ a a - u 3 5 1 »3 01 L« o 0 a So? -i n o. 15 1J ul •3 C -3 01 <0 a c y 3 Ll tL 01 0 <7> fl |j 1) X! O 11 o \ l,-7 ^ a ^ ^ •/> a ■3^5 a. h 0 -£ e a. 3 § 5 « ^ ^ g e "> o a S ?a^ -I O TJ C -J -4 ■H -I u -< ~( -H 'J -I >> 11 O ^ii oi m o a 3 u 01 a u T) 01 5 » f I ' e . L rl O a. x 1^ -l -b o> ib r1 - -• —1 7) 5 c 01 a ■M 71 7) a 71 a o 1 u o 01 t N — . •H ll 11 •J > a -1 —4 ■ 1 Q o XI a -3 TJ -j -< 01 v 'J r4 V. >> 11 'I S! -jj o o 1» 3- C •r4 a cb 3 u 3 a y .< " 3 a rj u a 3 -» 3 ■3 'J a TJ a c 3 3 .- _4 0 u, 3" 3 » .a a . 1$ Sj 0 f- o -l x: ■n 3 ^ 3- o u •u o a * 3 TJ a = 11 -s s „ 01 a ?9 c 71 X! 3 3 TJ -> u e -< > (0 'J -j a u s 3 •J 3 -> 0' -1 '-> li ;j 71 Z 5 ^ Ll (fl v J> ? rJ 3 y 3 3 £ a a v? 330 •n o 3! •-j a -j Li Ll -J 3 3 Ll Ll 01 'u 'JJ -'is ^ ° " " 3 5 2 S 3. g = I a a u y u li " 2 ?■ o Li 0) lw 4f 5 -^ a a •/) o 3 tj -1 a 01 " s TJ'I 3 .5 ' 3. oi 5 a ^ "» ie •oca 01 -j 3 71 b V ib 3 u » 3 O ■0 Ll 6l Cl . 'J S 11 >. m : » .- i' a li O n ^ rs Ll U Jl r-*. LJ rn ^ ^ a? t! * 5 0 3 -" -3 I', 3^ •0 -(. •J lT» • a 3 —1 ^ 0 C ri >. -d 0 4J 0-.2- .^ 3 a -4 3 3 u • 3 ■J -i " 3 U -H 3 -r 7) u iJ a v 0 • 1 »> C s < 2 01 "J t 2 u 3 — Li TJ > « . u 3 •H II TJ U L, >N U -7- C 3 C 01 .5 Ll -H u ** I-4 -.O — 1 CL 01 "3 3 U -I oi _2 0 ~° X -• 0I 3 TJ a a 5 as —1 71 3 : li 3 -J j) TJ 3-v a _i 3 1-1 3 C u •» ■** nj 3 U 3 V 3 3 ri 0 Li -" — ' Mi ■% 3 X •J> •n —1 e —4 'J V a a - 5 .« ■H oj — u X -I c -JJ- u , 71 53 CTi 3- 91 2 2 3 11 7-. ~T Ll ^ 0) U «"< 3 X u O 01 a 3 ui -" kl 3 01 >> 2 TJ " -o X u a •^4 • -I J — U « O -J, °^^ 2P •>-• *- a ' • ai (1) c 0 — 1 -4 —1 Ll a 3 JJ 11 x: L. (-• V 01 3 ij i! ■a c 01 — 1 3 "■"' — ^ m Ni^ 3 u x; Ll u u u a ■~i 4, •"^ si J= . '-> " H g «« ^ S J2 • S" in V -~* u 3 ^JJ -< •r4 0 3 U u u 33 ? 3 9* 3 — 4 « L» —1 > r i- s © a y 3 li o c 0 a £.13. a° ^4 2 I 3 a: - 3 - " e e r^ 0 ^ 3 a, li 3 3 2 g r. " I -^ TJ —4 -*4 V O a O u 3! £ e y 41 ° 'U 11 u in 01 - TJ e li 3 3 00 V X . 1 LJ — * 01 y li li _ jC :d Id 0 10 U i-4 IB H TJ -1 0 3 C (* 3 >. 1: C C U-4 B . c in ■« O O 3 3 ■ _^ -1 3 11 -r1 -j -1 3 •3 r^ ! U 3 7) ^ •Ji a 71 a, u a i> 3 a a o q o •*■ O w Q M in o O 50 3 35 (B 7) 3 01 01 a > a c b a O K (B ^^ a x in o O TO 0 s in o 3S m o §3 m o ■5 01 5- u *4 a 3. >• w c in o O 53 O -• §3 TJ -• a u J3 •JJ-4 a u u <: 34, •z. r 7) -jj Coo -c 1 4JI 4JI 01 — — u o 23 to fishermen caused by the 200,000 pound quota and effort restriction. These comments were aired at July 10 and 11 New England hearings . The final Amendment #2 was published in August of 19 79. Plan objectives were the same. Two management areas were established using the dividing line between the New England and Mid-Atlantic Council authority as the separator. The summary of the Amendment is included here. The major difference between the drafts and the final, as far as New England was concerned, was that the quota was increased to 400,000 pounds of surf clams. The Mid-Atlantic Council did not believe that the 400,000 pound quota of surf clam meats was restrictive on the New England fishery due to the small size of past catches from the New England region. It believed that the quota left much room for expansion. Additionally, it was very concerned over the influence of "New England clams" on market prices and feared that too high a quota would lead to adverse economic impact on Mid- Atlantic, as well as New England, interests. They were also concerned over the need for a foreign allocation since any unharvested New England quota, brought about by setting that quota too high, would indicate excess capacity thus obligat- ing the Secretary of Commerce to make the excess available to foreign fishermen. The Mid-Atlantic Council appeared to make a sincere attempt to accomodate New England interests under the con- straints which it had to work. While the proposed New England quota may not have been great enough to encourage expansion and growth of the New England surf clam industry in the Fishery Conservation Zone, the Mid-Atlantic Council's concerns, legal and otherwise, were appreciated. Lifting of the moratorium was at least a good first step, especially since no one was sure of the fishery's growth potential. However, the Mid -Atlantic Council did feel that if the New England industry could harvest the 400,000 pounds quota, then the New England Council would have had solid grounds on which to base an argument for an increased quota and more offshore survey work by NMFS to better assess the resource and its potential. At December 19 79 Council meetings it was reported that the Mid-Atlantic Council was investigating ways to remove the moratorium from their area as well. They were looking at schemes such as stock certificate programs. Apparently, vessels which formerly sold their surf clams to smaller pro- cessors were selling to larger processors because a higher price was offered. Smaller processors were therefore finding it difficult to acquire an adequate supply to meet their needs and wanted to bring in their own boats by removing the moratorium. 24 The Mid-Atlantic Council developed another amendment to its Surf Clam/Ocean Quahog Plan - Amendment #3 (January 19 81) to revise and extend the Plan indefinitely. Proposed ob- jectives were: 1) Prevent the exploitation of these resources from exceeding those levels which reduce the probability of successful recruitment to the fisheries. 2) Provide the greatest degree of flexibility to all harvesters of these resources consistent with the attainment of the other objectives of this Plan. 3) Optimize yield per recruit. 4) Increase understanding of the conditions of the stocks and fishery. The Mid-Atlantic Council decided to propose as its preferred course of action: 1) Continue the provision to close areas with large numbers of small surf clams; impose a 5 1/2" surf clam size limit; continue annual and quarterly quotas; and, continue the effort restriction in the existing Plan. The ocean quahog regime would be continued unchanged. 2) Revise the fishing week, bad weather make-up day, and effort restrictions. 3) Create separate management areas for reopened surf clam areas. 4) A proposal to choose between either a) a permit limitation system in the Mid-Atlantic surf clam fishery or b) a ceiling on numbers of surf clam permits. Valid permits in 19 81 would be valid in 1982. To retain a permit a vessel must harvest 8,000 bushels of FCZ clams (surf clams or ocean quahogs) annually. The total number of permits may increase or decrease by 5 for every 5 percent in- crease or decrease in optimum yield. No permit shall be revoked if the vessel caught 8,000 bushels annually. May hearings were scheduled to discuss these proposed Plan changes. At May 19 81 New England Council meetings the Plan's proposed strategies were discussed. According to one summary of the hearing: 25 "There were 15-20 people attending the hearing. There was good representation from both Massachu- setts and Rhode Island from both the harvesting and processing sectors. My general observation is that most of the comments received were negative concerning most of the proposals. Negative com- ments were directed at the minimum size of 5 1/2" applying to both New England and Mid-Atlantic areas. The proposal to create a 25,000 bushels quota for New England waters is opposed. There has never been an adequate survey of the New England waters . Since there has not been any survey work done, a number of people questioned why we had a quota at all. The major objection related to the limited entry provisions. It should be eliminated. Those in attendance were against both licensing proposals." According to another summary: "I don't think anybody has a lot of scientific data on ocean quahogs. We took the position that we would be very supportive of time/area closures for as long a period as is necessary to protect the resource. We see no other reason at the moment for the kind of complicated mess they are in down there. We think these are purely economic measures, and they are discriminatory. The Plan sets some precedents which we feel are undesireable. I would echo the plea that this Council take some action and say it is not in favor of the Plan as it stands." The Council initially decided to communicate its oppo- sition to several of the proposals contained in the proposed Surf Clam/Ocean Quahog FMP Amendment. The specific items of concern related to regulations affecting the New England area and were as follows: Surf Clams: 1. 5 1/2" minimum size 2. 25,000 bushel fixed quota 3. Imposition of effort restrictions when 1/2 of the quota has been harvested Licensing provision 5a and 5b in the current amendment 26 Ocean Quahogs: 1. inclusion of the New England area in the 4-6 mil. bu. quota 2. possible effort restrictions in New England when 1/2 of the quota has been reached In addition, it shall be the position of the Council to respectfully request that the Mid-Atlantic Council initiate the following actions: Surf Clams: The New England area should continue as a separate management unit without any other restriction. New England vessel licenses subject to the moratorium should be able to retain these fishing privileges in the Mid-Atlantic area without the requirement to land mini- mum quantities. In addition, the Council endorses the proposed survey in the New England area. Ocean Quahogs : A separate management area should be established for ocean quahogs in the New England area similar to that established for surf clams. There should be no quota or other effort restrictions imposed on the New England ocean quahog fishery. The New England Council respectfully requests that the Mid-Atlantic Council appoint two New England fishing industry representatives to the surf clam and ocean quahog advisory subpanel. However, at the urging of the Regional Director, the Council agreed to take an alternative action. The Regional Director had stated: "I have some personal concerns with the motion the way it is. What I would suggest is that we defeat or withdraw the motion and that the Chair authorize our Surf Clam Committee to meet, sit down and work with the Mid-Atlantic Council staff and put together comments for their consideration. My concern is that, as I see the motion, I don't think it will have a significant impact on the Mid-Atlantic Council. These people can come back and let us know the results of the meeting and then if our efforts did not work, we can send a letter. I would like to see the Councils work together to build a compatible plan. I would recommend defeat- ing the motion and taking that course of action." Results of the Surf Clam Committee's meeting with the Mid-Atlantic's Surf Clam Committee were related at the June 27 1981 meetings, Apparently the Mid-Atlantic Surf Clam Com- mittee was receptive to many of the New England Council's suggestions. One Council member, Jacob Dykstra, stated: "I would like to commend the Mid-Atlantic for apparently being responsive to the expressed desire of this Council. On the other hand, I would like the record to show that as far as I am concerned, I don't think there is any concrete biological need for limited entry in this fishery. It seems to me this limited entry scheme is discriminatory. Apparently there are a lot of surf clams available. I would vigorously support closures that would protect small clams or for any biological reason. But, I still very much fail to see any biological reason for the limited entry, and I think it is discriminatory. " The Amendment #3 system to limit permits in the Mid- Atlantic area surf clam fishery as a replacement to the moratorium was not accepted by NOAA. In lieu of this limited entry scheme the Department of Commerce extended the mora- torium on entry of vessels into the Mid-Atlantic area. The limited entry scheme had evolved to allow one new permit for every four permits expiring. The eventual provisions of Amendment #3, which were still in effect as of the end of 1982, are provided in a Mid-Atlantic Council summary of its Surf Clam/Ocean Quahog Plan. 28 SURF CLAM AND OCEAN QUAHOG PLAN The original Plan was approved by the Secretary of Commerce in November, 1977, for the period through September 1979. Amendment tfl extended it through 31 December 1979, and revised reporting requirements to bring them in compliance with the amended MFCMA. Amendment //2 extended it through the end of calendar year 1981. Amendment f/3 extended the Plan indefinitely and revised it. The objectives of the Plan are: . 1. Rebuild the surf clam populations to allow eventual harvest approaching the 50 million pound level, which is the estimate of maximum sustainable yield over the range of the resource, based on the average yearly catch from 1960 to 1976. 2. Minimize economic dislocation to the extent possible consistent with objective 1 and encourage efficiency in the fishery. 3. Prevent the harvest of ocean quahogs from exceeding maximum sustainable yield ano direct the fishery toward achieving Optimum Yield. 4. Provide the greatest degrees of freedom and flexibility to all harvesters of these resources consistent with the attainment of the other objectives of this Plan. 5. Optimize yield per recruit. 6. Increase understanding of the conditions of the stocks and fishery. The management unit is all surf clams and all ocean quahogs in the Atlantic FCZ. There is a 5'.5" minimum size limit for surf clams in the Mid-Atlantic Area. Quotas are set annually through a consultative process. For surf clams, the values are between L.5 and 2.9 million bushels (approximately 30 -50 million pounds of meats) for the Mid-Atlantic Area and between 25,000 ana 100.000 bushels (approximately 425,000 -1.7 million pounds of meats) in the New England Area. For ocean quahogs, the values are between 4.0 and 6.0 million bushels (40 - 60 million pounos of meats . In the Mid-Atianttc Area, surf clam quarterly quotas are equal. The bad weather make-up day is in effect during November through April. The fishing week begins at 6:00 am Sundav and ends at 6:0(1 pm Tuursdav, but may ceqin at 12:00 am Sunday under certain conditions. Effort restrictions are set by the Re rrisnal Director so as to insure fishing througnout a quarter with the minimum cnance of closure whi.e i.so minimizing the effort changes during the quarter. In the New Engiano Area, when 50% of the annual surf clam quota has been caught, the Regional Cirector may reduce the number of days per week, or establish authorized periods, during which surf clam fishing is permittea. When 50°o of the ocean quafiog quota has been caught, the Regional Director may reaucf the nur-cer cf days curing which fishing for ocean quanogs is allowed. Areas ciosed for containing concentrations of small surf clams, when reopened, have allowable ?".'r'-?s separate from trie overaii quota and appropriate effort restrictions will be i^posec in such areas '.c .-:.?? that the harves: o; trie allowable catch extenos througnout a predetermined time period. Fisher- •;■ ire required to aovise NMFS if thev want to fish in a reopened area. Amendment >/3, as oooptea 0v the Council, included a system to limit permits in the Mid- Atlantic ?.rea surf clam fisnery as a replacement to the moratorium on entry of new vessels into tnat fishery, in :.ej <-i implementinn tr.at alternative, the Commerce Department extended the moratorium on entrv cr \-~~~.3 into tnc '-lie- -iliantic Area surf rlam fishery. The Counc.l has begun consiaeration of ways to resc>-= t'.s problem.